West Jordan council approves Copper Meadows planned community after months of neighborhood protest

On Dec. 4, 2024, the West Jordan City Council approved a master development plan and a rezoning for Copper Meadows, a residential development north of 8200 South and Stokesley, voting 6–1 to adopt Ordinance 24-47 (master development agreement/plan) and Ordinance 24-48 (rezoning and general-plan amendment).

The approvals allow the developer, Peterson Development, to proceed with a planned-community project on roughly 76.16 acres and a proposed density of about 4.2 dwelling units per acre. Council member Green moved to approve the master development plan and council member Shelton seconded; both the master plan (Ordinance 24-47) and the rezoning (Ordinance 24-48) passed with six council votes in favor and one against (Council member Whitelock).

The council’s approval included three amendments that the developer agreed to add to the master development plan: a detailed drawing and maintenance plan for the project’s detention pond that describes water-wise landscaping for the roughly 0.9-acre feature; a commitment to use seed mixes or planting guidance from the Utah Division of Conservation for natural open-space areas to limit weeds and improve revegetation; and a requirement that Peterson Development study whether townhouse units depicted in the plan can be redesigned to look more like single-family houses, with any resulting design changes treated as minor deviations that staff could approve rather than requiring full council reapproval.

The vote followed an extended public comment period in which many residents from nearby neighborhoods—including Sycamores and High Point—urged postponement or rejection. Speakers raised recurring concerns about grading and lot‑height compatibility, water and sewer capacity, parking and driveway impacts, annexation contingency, and whether the plan matched the city’s 2023 general‑plan land‑use expectations. Jake McNinch, a West Jordan resident, told the council, “We want this development done correctly. … I ask the Council tonight to vote for a postponement.” Similar pleas came from multiple residents; a motion to postpone the ordinances by Council member Whitelock failed for lack of a second.

Council members who supported approval cited a need to balance neighborhood concerns with broader citywide housing policy pressures. Council member Green said he had pressed the developer for clarifications after the prior meeting and that the amendments resolved key technical questions; he also noted the city faces statewide scrutiny over housing implementation. Council member Shelton argued a narrower development now could lock in lower density than potential by‑right changes at the state level, saying a rejected rezoning could invite more drastic outcomes imposed by future legislation.

The council and staff clarified several technical points during the discussion: a prior discrepancy in public records about acreage (a county assessor listing of 80.25 acres vs. the survey and plan figure of 76.16 acres) was resolved by a survey verifying 76.16 acres; the developer’s current proposal would yield about 318 dwelling units, including 54 townhomes; and the planned community zone already in the city code requires elements—such as structured parking and commercial components—if multifamily is pursued under the city’s overlay tools. The council directed staff and the developer to proceed under the amended master plan and noted the possibility of future ordinance refinements.

The council took the two votes separately: the master development agreement (Ordinance 24-47) passed 6–1; the associated rezoning and general-plan amendment (Ordinance 24-48) passed 6–1. Council member Whitelock voted no on both motions and stated a desire for more resident engagement and additional changes.

The approvals do not finalize construction permits. Staff and the developer must still complete the technical permitting steps, and the council noted the possibility of later amendments to design standards. In discussion the council also referenced the annexation process, which staff said had been considered previously at the planning commission, and that some items remain contingent on engineering, grading and infrastructure approvals.

Residents who spoke said they would continue to press for design changes and infrastructure assurances in follow-up meetings and communications with staff and the developer.